 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why Innovative Policies Are Needed
Current U.S. systems of chemicals regulation are based on ignorance about chemical hazards, detailed quantification of highly uncertain risks, and taking action only after harm has been demonstrated. During the past half-century, more than 75,000 chemical products and other hazardous materials have been developed and put into commerce, often with little consideration about their-long term environmental or health implications. Government and industry responses to the lack of data on the health effects of chemical exposures have typically been reactive: demand more data, study and quantify the problem, and take action (usually control or remediation) only when the need is demonstrated by conclusive evidence of harm or, even worse, deny the problem altogether. While such data are being developed, the status quo—allowing exposure to continue—is maintained. Highly constrained government agencies and advocates have often lacked a vision of a more sustainable chemicals policy.
Facing the same problem of limited health and environmental data on chemicals in commerce, some European governments have been discussing innovative chemicals policies that are more protective of human health and the environment. These policies include phase-out and substitution of substances with hazardous properties (regardless of quantified risk) and innovation to develop safer chemicals. These approaches, guided by a strong scientific understanding of the problems of chemical risks, are coupled with vigorous chemical testing and analysis programs, as well as processes to ensure that unintended consequences of policies (such as job loss or trade-off risks) are minimized.
However, in the United States, the advocacy community, most legislators, and many government scientists and policy makers lack information on the emerging European chemicals policies. They may thus lose opportunities to advocate for broader policies in this country and to collaborate with Europeans and others in developing policies of mutual interest.
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
